Nirvana is an extreme because nirvana is a cessation -- as the etymology of the name implies. But this is all besides the point.

It seems you have, for the time being, adopted the view that the Nikāya/Agamic Buddhism is the real stuff. Next you will be telling us that rebirth [punarbhava] is balony too, and that karma is bollocks.

Today, I was able to purchase the Kindle version of the book, and have given it a once-through reading. Probably missing much.

Overall, I'd have to say that his pūrva pakṣa is successful. I particularly like the chapter on 'Non-translatable Sanskrit versus Digestion', where he gets very specific in dispelling some of the more disastrous English translations of Sanskrit terms. It will take at least another pass at the two appendices to get a good grasp of those, but this line from 'Appendix A: The Integral Unity of Dharma', caught my eye:

The spirit of openness toward the multiplicity of possible answers to complex questions is why pluralism is deeply embedded in the notion of dharma.

The Judeo-Christian religions lack the fundamental R&D to be able to change to the same extent and to be able to offer the same choices and openness. As we have seen, they do not believe that the first principles of truth can be discovered by humans on their own; hence, their obsession with claiming historically unique events.

Here, as in other places, there are over-simplifications (as he admits early-on). There are both Judeo and Christian (as well as Islamic) mystics who have done some of the 'R&D' (as he calls experiential introspection) to 'open up' those traditions, but they are far from considered 'main stream'. Of course, there are variations of 'Hinduism' which are much more in line with Abrahamic monotheism, but Indian peoples tend to be much more open to religious diversity and accepting of 'individualistic' (in Western terms) 'inner experience'.

If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment

I think that Malhotra argues that such mystics were seen as a threat to the established institutions of the time, and therefore could not have a meaningful impact on the broader tradition.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

Malcolm wrote:Nirvana is an extreme because nirvana is a cessation -- as the etymology of the name implies. But this is all besides the point.

It is a cessation of suffering and delusion. Who wants to keep that going? It's funny the transforms that happen due to clinging to dictionary thinking.

Malcolm wrote:It seems you have, for the time being, adopted the view that the Nikāya/Agamic Buddhism is the real stuff. Next you will be telling us that rebirth [punarbhava] is balony too, and that karma is bollocks.

deepbluehum wrote:Reading a bit about this book. The thing about "mutual respect" is a bit of a slight of hand on his part. He is basically trying to get other religions to respect Hindu ideals.

I don't think his point is that facile. For example, Buddha actually did respect other paths, even if he did not sign off on them.

Though I wouldn't exactly call it 'slight of hand', here, deepbluehum has a point. Malhotra defines 'respect' specifically as 'mutual respect', which means, to him, admitting that all paths lead to the divine. He does this knowing full well Abrahamic religions cannot accord mutual respect due to their exclusivism. Buddha would have had to 'sign off on them' to meet Malhotra's criteria.

Malcolm wrote:No, I don't think so -- he adresses this point and includes Carvaka and Lokayati schools as well. You guys have not read this book carefully enough.

Coming back to this, as I am still contemplating...

As I noted, we 'tolerate' those we consider not good enough, but we do not extend our respect to them. 'Tolerance' implies control over those who do not conform to our norms by allowing them some, though not all, of the rights and privileges we enjoy. A religion which involves the worship of 'false gods' and whose adherents are referred to as 'heathens' can be tolerated, but it cannot be respected. Tolerance is a patronizing posture, whereas respect implies that we consider the other to be equally legitimate – a position which some religions routinely deny to others, instead declaring these 'others' to be 'idol worshippers' or 'infidels' and the like.

The various dharma schools have a continuing history of debates amongst themselves, and many volumes have been compiled to document and analyse these. My goal is not to explain these systems or their relationships with one another in technical detail. Rather, I wish to highlight the ties and bonds within the vast spectrum of dharma traditions that constitute what I am calling 'the integral unity of dharma'. This unity is classically expressed in the Vedas, but it is not confined to schools that privilege the Vedas as authoritative. This relatedness among different schools differs from the 'synthetic unity' created by fusing together independent entities that must be reconciled. Instead, it is a kind of diversity springing precisely from the wholeness that grounds it. The common attributes discussed will serve as a basis for contrasting them with the Western traditions. The purpose behind such an exercise is to highlight the unique and core ideas of dharma using the West as a foil. Among the plethora of dharma schools, several accept the authority of the Vedas while others do not. Some like Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya and Yoga accept Vedic authority but have developed their own independent philosophies. Those that do not accept the Vedas include Buddhists, Jains, Carvaka and Lokayata (the latter two being materialist schools).

Given this definition, what about the idea that one does not have to 'sign off on' a method of arrival at, for lack of a better term, the 'Ultimate', to show respect'? Also, can it still be said that a 'wholeness grounds it' if the idea of what is 'Ultimate' differs?

If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment

Even in the Pali canon Buddha makes it very clear that Arhats do not possess omniscience. Furthermore, Vasubandhu is extremely clear about this point.

Did you hear what Veenahahu said? I could care less what Vasubandhu said. The Pali canon makes it clear Arahats are buddhas, and have everything he has. The only difference, is Buddha came first and laid it out, the rest followed it. All the qualities of "omniscience," the five knowledges, etc., Arahats have.

FWIW, according to the Theravāda Paṭisambhidāmagga a buddha has the following knowledges and abilities not shared by arhat disciples:

knowledge of the penetration of other beings' faculties

knowledge of other beings' biases and underlying tendancies

knowledge of the twin miracle*

knowledge of the attainment of great compassion

omniscience & unobstructed knowledge

The Theravāda commentaries also differentiate between sammāsambodhi, paccekabodhi, and sāvakabodhi. Accordingly, a mahābodhisatta develops the perfections, etc., to a greater degree in order to realize sammāsambodhi.

*i.e. the ability to produce fire and water from various parts of the body, as well as walk amid an aura of colors while a created image of his body sits or lies down, etc.

You did not get my point of questioning your definition of "Kshatriyas", so I will make it more clear here. Were "Kshatriyas" Indo-Aryans(Caucasians) or Native Dravidians and Austro-Asiatics? Besides, you are only taking the "Brahmanic" definition of these caste terms, which is really absurd considering that their influence in India was only limited to the North Western region. A Brahmin would only call an Indo-Aryan king as "Kshatriy" which is why Greek, Chinese or Persian kings are not called "Kshatriyas". And this is the same reason why the Nandas, Mauryas, Palas, are recorded as "Shudras" by them. When even Ashoka is recorded as "Shudra", by these minority groups who had no real influence during his time, how can you take this perception and standard of social classes (of the Indo-Aryans) as a basis to explain Buddhist social dynamics especially when the vast majority of Indians did not have any castes? I have visited many famous Buddhist caves and the are inscriptions usually in most caves about the laymen and women who donated for the construction of the caves. You would be surprised that no caste of the lay men or women is mentioned with the only exception of "Brahmin"!